BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1575 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1575 (Lara) As Amended August 21, 2012 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |50-22|(May 31, 2012) |SENATE: |23-13|(August 23, | | | | | | |2012) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: ED. SUMMARY : Codifies the constitutional prohibition on the imposition of pupil fees and establishes procedures to ensure compliance with that prohibition. Specifically, this bill : 1)Statutorily prohibits all local education agencies (LEAs) from imposing pupil fees. 2)Defines "pupil fee" to include: a) A fee charged as a condition for registering for or participating in a school or class or extracurricular activity that is an integral part of elementary and secondary education; and, b) A security deposit or other payment to obtain or purchase a lock, locker, class apparatus, musical instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment. 3)Clarifies that this bill does not prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or property, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or school districts, schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities. 4)Requires the California Department of Education, commencing in 2014-15 and every three years thereafter, to develop and distribute guidance regarding pupil fees and make it available on its Internet Web site. 5)Provides that the guidance shall not constitute a regulation. 6)States that the provisions regarding the definition of and AB 1575 Page 2 prohibition against pupil fees are declaratory of existing law. 7)Authorizes a complaint of noncompliance with the prohibition against pupil fees to be filed with the principal of a school under the existing Uniform Complaint Procedures process and authorizes a complainant who is not satisfied with the decision of the school to appeal the decision to the California Department of Education (CDE). 8)Requires, if a complaint is found to be meritorious, the school to provide a remedy to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians including, where applicable, reasonable efforts to ensure full reimbursement of illegally assessed fees. 9)Requires schools to include information regarding the prohibition against pupil fees and the complaint procedure in the annual Uniform Complaint Procedure notice distributed to pupils, parents and guardians. 10)Exempts the cost of reimbursements for illegally assessed pupil fees from eligibility for state mandated cost reimbursement. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1)$400,000 cost to the CDE for administration and local support. 2)Substantial mandate on local education agencies to adopt and implement policies regarding the prohibition against pupil fees, to administer a complaint process, and to train appropriate staff. 3)Vesting the SPI with the authority to require fee reimbursement from individual local education agencies could result in a reimbursable mandate. COMMENTS : The California Supreme Court ruled in Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899, 201, that pupil fees violate the constitutional right to a free education. Moreover, the court ruled that extracurricular activities also must be free, because they are an integral component of public education and a part of the educational program. AB 1575 Page 3 In September 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit alleging the unconstitutional assessment of pupil fees by school districts ÝJane Doe, et al. v. State of California, et al., (2010) Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, BC445151]. The lawsuit followed an August 2010 report from the ACLU that documented more than 50 public school districts that required pupils to pay fees for textbooks, workbooks, science labs, physical education uniforms, classroom materials, and extracurricular activities. In December 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger and the ACLU announced a tentative settlement that would have established a monitoring and enforcement system, but the court did not finalize the settlement. The following April the ACLU filed an amended complaint that dropped the Governor as a defendant and added the SPI, the California Department of Education, and the State Board of Education (the "State Education Defendants"). In May 2011 the State Education Defendants and the ACLU agreed to a stay of court proceedings to allow for a legislative solution. The State of California did not agree to the stay and instead suggested that the case be dismissed pending the outcome of the legislative process. The legislative solution, which was supported by the ACLU, was AB 165 (Lara). Governor Brown vetoed AB 165 with the following message: This bill responds to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the state, alleging that some local school districts are denying students their right to a free public education by charting improper fees for classes and extracurricular activities. Local district compliance with this right is essential, and those who fail should be held accountable. But this bill takes the wrong approach to getting there. The bill would mandate that every single classroom in California post a detailed notice and that all 1,042 school districts and over 1,200 charter schools follow specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even where there have been no complaints, let alone evidence of any violation. This goes too far. After AB 165 was vetoed by the Governor, the court case was reactivated. On January 26, 2012, the court overruled demurrers AB 1575 Page 4 filed by the State of California and the State Education Defendants, allowing the legal case to move forward. The courts have consistently ruled against the imposition of pupil fees. Therefore, if the Legislature does not enact its own solution, it is almost certain that the court will order one. Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0005214